Humanist ethics (1 Viewer)

[watsup]

• trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
• makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
• believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

Humanism

Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have...

humanists.uk

I don’t see a problem with this.

 

[MamboDervish]

• trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
• makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
• believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

Humanism

Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have...

humanists.uk

I don’t see a problem with this.

Nor do I. Nor should any compassionate human being.

 

[Noodlegawd]

• trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
• makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
• believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

Humanism

Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have...

humanists.uk

I don’t see a problem with this.

Sorry, but it's not possible for your life to have meaning without an all-powerful mass murderer imposing stupid and arbitrary rules that you must obey to avoid eternal torture. Duh!

 

[Logician Man]

From the OP link:

A brief two and a half minute video explaining what "humanism" actually is in relationship to "finding meaning" in this life we live.

 

[brianpatrick]

• trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
• makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
• believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

Humanism

Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have...

humanists.uk

I don’t see a problem with this.

The only problem I see is that science doesn’t know how the universe works. Any technology or phenomenon that is beyond our understanding is indistinguishable from magic or the supernatural.

That’s a scary idea because humans like to feel in control of things. They need explanations that give them a sense of security.

I would say give to science what is in the purview of science, in the same spirit as “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…”

 

[MamboDervish]

I would say give to science what is in the purview of science, . . .

That expands on an almost daily basis.

 

[Michael Cole]

The only problem I see is that science doesn’t know how the universe works. Any technology or phenomenon that is beyond our understanding is indistinguishable from magic or the supernatural.

Rejecting that which can't be understood is the point. Indeed, if we look historically and strip references to gods, ancient codes reveal humanistic ethics in various areas.

Theft, adultery, murder, envy, codified in the 10 Commandments and elsewhere.

I suggest going through the 42 Negative Confessions from the Egyptian religion.

The 42 Laws Of Maat List - The 42 Ideals Of Ma'at

Ideals and the 42 Laws of Maat. Laws that promote: order, balance, truth, righteousness, morality and justice. Goddess of Truth, Justice and Order.

www.egyptconnection.com

You can do a quick scan and notice it's the 10 Commandments+. Ignoring references to the supernatural, you encounter laws like this:

13- I have not made anyone cry​

A world where no one was made to cry would be the most humanistic world we could imagine.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is another command that would result in the same humanistic world.

Religions can be seen as humanistic with an unnecessary middleman added.

That’s a scary idea because humans like to feel in control of things. They need explanations that give them a sense of security.

I would say give to science what is in the purview of science, in the same spirit as “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…”

 

[Gordy327]

I don’t see a problem with this.

Neither do I.

 

[brianpatrick]

That expands on an almost daily basis.

No doubt. I’m all for science and discovery, just careful about claims of conclusion. Case in point, “we know what reality is…” Actually we don’t. Of course lots of people take this idea too far the other way too and conclude that sky daddy must have created everything.

 

[mrjurrs]

• trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
• makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
• believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

Humanism

Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have...

humanists.uk

I don’t see a problem with this.

Neither do I.

 

[brianpatrick]

Rejecting that which can't be understood is the point. Indeed, if we look historically and strip references to gods, ancient codes reveal humanistic ethics in various areas.

Theft, adultery, murder, envy, codified in the 10 Commandments and elsewhere.

I suggest going through the 42 Negative Confessions from the Egyptian religion.

The 42 Laws Of Maat List - The 42 Ideals Of Ma'at

Ideals and the 42 Laws of Maat. Laws that promote: order, balance, truth, righteousness, morality and justice. Goddess of Truth, Justice and Order.

www.egyptconnection.com

You can do a quick scan and notice it's the 10 Commandments+. Ignoring references to the supernatural, you encounter laws like this:

13- I have not made anyone cry​

A world where no one was made to cry would be the most humanistic world we could imagine.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is another command that would result in the same humanistic world.

Religions can be seen as humanistic with an unnecessary middleman added.

Yeah, humans can also be humanistic without any religion at all.

 

[Michael Cole]

Yeah, humans can also be humanistic without any religion at all.

Which is the point. That science can't tell us everything is irrelevant.

Humanism existed alongside beliefs in magic and the supernatural. The role of science has been to filter out these "middlemen."

 

[brianpatrick]

Which is the point. That science can't tell us everything is irrelevant.

Humanism existed alongside beliefs in magic and the supernatural. The role of science has been to filter out these "middlemen."

Here’s my distinction, and it’s subtle. Scientific “understanding” can lead to false claims about what is part of reality and what is not. Yes, it goes both ways, and is equally absurd the other way.

 

[watsup]

The only problem I see is that science doesn’t know how the universe works. Any technology or phenomenon that is beyond our understanding is indistinguishable from magic or the supernatural.

I have no idea why you keep bringing this up other than to try to justify your own beliefs, being somewhat akin to those of the religionists, that there is indeed that which cannot be eventually explained by science. And then you resort to the same simplistic “arguments from awe” that have been around since her dawn of humanity in which anything that is not immediately explainable suddenly becomes an excuse for claiming that “there must be” or at least that “there might be” something beyond that which cannot be explained through natural and scientific means. If you want to justify your own superstitions in that manner, similar to the way in which the religionists justify theirs, then that is up to you, but don’t try to link it to Humanist thought. It is yours, not theirs.

 

[Noodlegawd]

That science can't tell us everything is irrelevant.

The fact that science can't tell us everything is not "irrelevant," it is the actual point of science. Science is not some entity that tells us stuff. It is a process for discovering stuff we don't already know. Discovering new knowledge is the main point of science. If we already knew everything, there'd be no need for it.

 

[Michael Cole]

Here’s my distinction, and it’s subtle. Scientific “understanding” can lead to false claims about what is part of reality and what is not. Yes, it goes both ways, and is equally absurd the other way.

But this has nothing to do with living a happy life. My reality is known to me. I don't need science to tell me about reality. What science can tell me is where I came from, where I'm going, and several ways to get there. I don't pretend to look to science to validate my reality. I do that myself by living, which is the whole basis of humanism.

You trust the scientific method as much as I do. If you're looking for anything else, you're looking in the wrong place. That's what religion is for.

 

[Michael Cole]

The fact that science can't tell us everything is not "irrelevant," it is the actual point of science. Science is not some entity that tells us stuff. It is a process for discovering stuff we don't already know. Discovering new knowledge is the main point of science. If we already knew everything, there'd be no need for it.

It's irrelevant to humanism as described in the OP. Trusting the scientific method =/= science knows everything.

 

[brianpatrick]

I have no idea why you keep bringing this up other than to try to justify your own beliefs, being somewhat akin to those of the religionists, that there is indeed that which cannot be eventually explained by science. And then you resort to the same simplistic “arguments from awe” that have been around since her dawn of humanity in which anything that is not immediately explainable suddenly becomes an excuse for claiming that “there must be” or at least that “there might be” something beyond that which cannot be explained through natural and scientific means. If you want to justify your own superstitions in that manner, similar to the way in which the religionists justify theirs, then that is up to you, but don’t try to link it to Humanist thought. It is yours, not theirs.

The bold is true. The rest is assumption.

 

[watsup]

Scientific “understanding” can lead to false claims about what is part of reality and what is not

And here we go again with hijacking yet another thread in which your “subtle” claims and quibbles try to justify a “reality” beyond that based in the natural and the scientific. We’ve been through this elsewhere, and it ends up with you claiming thst somehow those of us who are not you cannot understand your “subtleties” and that therefore you have somehow proven your case. Yes, you hide behind the subtleties so that you don’t have to engage in actual explanation of them.

 

[brianpatrick]

And here we go again with hijacking yet another thread in which your “subtle” claims and quibbles try to justify a “reality” beyond that based in the natural and the scientific. We’ve been through this elsewhere, and it ends up with you claiming thst somehow those of us who are not you cannot understand your “subtleties” and that therefore you have somehow proven your case. Yes, you hide behind the subtleties so that you don’t have to engage in actual explanation of them.

I’m not trying to prove anything. I think that’s primary in your misunderstanding. You seem to have a baseline at “proof.”

 

[watsup]

The bold is true. The rest is assumption.

Oh the irony! Once again, you simply hide behind the LACK of discussion as regards your claims about “reality”. And no, they are not assumptions. Right there in post #9 you start right back with your quibbling about reality without actually stating your case regarding the comment. Come out from the hiding and expand on your claims.

 

[watsup]

I’m not trying to prove anything. I think that’s primary in your misunderstanding. You seem to have a baseline at “proof.”

I didn’t ask for proof. I asked for more explanation, which you can’t seem to provide. That’s because your evidence for this reality is the same “argument from awe” given by religionists for their claims. The truth is that you have nothing beyond that, which is why you don’t even try to expand.

 

[brianpatrick]

Oh the irony! Once again, you simply hide behind the LACK of discussion as regards your claims about “reality”. And no, they are not assumptions. Right there in post #9 you start right back with your quibbling about reality without actually stating your case regarding the comment. Come out from the hiding and expand on your claims.

I am expanding on my claims. In fact, I’m saying the same thing over and over in different ways because it’s really much more simple and natural than you might be thinking. You’re making it more complicated than it is.

 

[brianpatrick]

I didn’t ask for proof. I asked for more explanation, which you can’t seem to provide. That’s because your evidence for this reality is the same “argument from awe” given by religionists for their claims. The truth is that you have nothing beyond that, which is why you don’t even try to expand.

You did ask for proof many times, even here in this post. “Evidence”, a word you use a lot, is what you want in search of “proof.” As for more explanation, there is none. There is only the same thing said over and over in different ways, pointing at it from different directions.

 

[watsup]

I am expanding on my claims. In fact, I’m saying the same thing over and over in different ways because it’s really much more simple and natural than you might be thinking. You’re making it more complicated than it is.

Just another garbage statement from you that says nothing at all. Quit trying to blame me yet again for your inability to explain your claims.